Cognitive influences of students' alternative conceptions within a hands-on gene technology module

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 104, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 158-170

  Franke, Gaitano ^a   Bogner, Franz X ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH   (Germany)

Author keywords

alternative conceptions; cognitive load; hands on lessons; instructional efficiency; knowledge; mental effort; molecular biology education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953719682     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671003636745     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). Effectiveness of problem-based learning on academic performance in genetics. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 448-451. (Pubitemid 350202436)
2. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389-400. (Pubitemid 44661048)
3. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
4. Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2000). Unterrichtsgestaltung, verständnisvolles Lernen und multiple Zielerreichung im Mathematik- und Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Instructional patterns, insightful learning and achieved literacy in upper secondarymathematics and physics instruction].
5. In J. Baumert, W. Bos,&R. Lehmann (Eds.), TIMSS/III Dritte internationale Mathematik: und Naturwissenschaftsstudie-Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn: Bd. 2. Mathematische und physikalische Kompetenzen am Ende der gymnasialen Oberstufe (pp. 271-315). Opladen, Germany: Leske + Buderich.
6. Bavarian State Ministry of Education. 2001. Lehrplan für die sechsstufige Realschule, Fachlehrpläne Biologie [Syllabus for the six-stage secondary school. biology syllabus]. München, Germany: Verlag J. Maiß
7. Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspectives. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 17-29.
8. Bortz, J.,&Döring, N. (2001). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation [Research methods and evaluation]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
9. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
11. Dogru-Atay, P., & Tekkaya, C. (2008). Promoting students' learning in genetics with the learning cycle. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 259-280.
12. Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey, J. Bliss, J. Head, & M. Shayer (Eds.), Adolescent development and school science (pp. 79-104). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
13. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
14. Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263-282). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.
15. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography STCSE: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/ stcse/stcse.html
16. Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 938-959. (Pubitemid 47425931)
17. Dunn, J., & Boud, D. (1986). Sequencing and organization. In D. Boud, J. Dunn, & E. Hegarty-Hazel (Eds.), Teaching in laboratories (pp. 57-78). Exeter, UK: NFER-Nelson.
18. Eggemeier, F. T. (1988). Properties of workload assessment techniques. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human and mental workload (pp. 41-62). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
19. Engeln, K., & Euler, M. (2004). Forschen statt Pauken. Aktives Lernen im Schülerlabor [Researching instead of craming: Active learning in an out-of-school laboratory]. Physik Journal, 3, 45-48.
20. Euler, M. (2001). Lernen durch Experimentieren [Learning by experimentation]. In U. Ringelband, M. Prenzel, & M. Euler (Eds.), Lernort Labor-Initiativen zur naturwissenschaftlichen Bildung zwischen Schule, Forschung u. Wirtschaft (pp. 13-42). Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education.
21. Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Course CLVI, Research on Physics Education (pp. 175-221). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
22. Franke, G., Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Investigation of pupils' alternative conceptions of fundamental terms and processes of gene technology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23. Gerstenmaier, J., & Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive [Knowledge acquisition under a constructivist perspective]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41, 867-888. (Pubitemid 126012809)
24. Glowinski, I. (2007). Schülerlabore im Bereich Molekularbiologie als Interesse fördernde Lernumgebungen [Out-of-school laboratories in the area of molecular biology as interest-supporting learning environments] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kiel, Germany.
25. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science: A review of research. Edinburgh, UK: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.
26. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573-580.
27. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105.
28. Hillebrandt, D., & Dähnhardt, D. (2005). Forschend lernen-Schülerlabore in Deutschland [Learning by research-Out-of-school laboratories in Germany]. TheoPrax, 1, 20-23.
29. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
30. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. (Pubitemid 38544888)
31. Johnson, S. K., & Stewart, J. (2002). Revising and assessing explanatory models in a high school genetics class: A comparison of unsuccessful and successful performance. Science Education, 86, 463-480. (Pubitemid 37230314)
32. Johnstone, A. H., & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry, 19, 71-73.
33. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1-17. (Pubitemid 28194518)
34. Kampenes, V. B., Dyb°a, T., Hannay, J. E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2007). A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 87-107.
35. Kattmann, U., Frerichs V., & Gluhodedow, M. (2005). Gene sind charakterlos [Genes do not have a character]. Der mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 58, 324-330.
36. Lewis, J. M.,Driver, R., Leach, J.T.,&Wood-Robinson,C. (1997). Working paper 2-understanding of basic genetics and DNA technology; the young people's understanding of, and attitudes to, the new genetics' project. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
37. Lewis, J. M., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students' understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 195-206. (Pubitemid 38237493)
38. Lewis, J. M., Leach, J. T., &Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). All in the genes? Young people's understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 74-79. (Pubitemid 30221673)
39. Lienert, G., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis]. Weinheim, Germany: Psychologie Verlags Union.
40. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contempory teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluver Academic.
41. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievements in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 273-292. (Pubitemid 351456610)
42. Maxton-Küchenmeister, J. (2003). Genlabor & Schule-eine Ü bersicht über Experimentierangebote zur Vermittlung von Gen- und Biotechnologie an Schulen [Gene technology lab & school: An overview about experimental offers for the mediation of gene technology and biotechnology at schools]. BIOspectrum, 4, 382-385.
43. Mbajiorgu, N. M., Ezechi, N. G., & Idoko, E. C. (2007). Addressing nonscientific presuppositions in genetics using a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 91, 419-438.
44. Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers' diagnosis and understanding of students' preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849-867. (Pubitemid 38614482)
45. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. K., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive loadmeasurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71. (Pubitemid 36400005)
46. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743. (Pubitemid 24099813)
47. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
48. Paas, F., van Merriënboer J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive-load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
49. Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students' scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Science Education, 83, 639-653.
50. Pintrich, P.R., Marx,R.W.,&Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role ofmotivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
51. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
52. Randler, C., & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25, 329-338.
53. Scharfenberg, F.-J. (2005). Experimenteller Biologieunterricht zu Aspekten der Gentechnik im Lernort Labor: empirische Untersuchung zu Akzeptanz, Wissenserwerb und Interesse [Experimental biology lessons about aspects of gene technology in an out-of-school laboratory: empirical investigation of acceptance, knowledge acquisition and interest] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bayreuth, Germany.
54. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829-844.
55. Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28-39. (Pubitemid 46422210)
56. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508.
57. Steiner, G. (2001). Lernen und Wissenserwerb [Learning and knowledge acquisition]. In A. Krapp, & B. Weidemann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie. Ein Lehrbuch (pp. 137-205). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
58. Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Student-oriented versus teachercentred: The effect of learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 941-959.
59. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43, 215-266. (Pubitemid 137639577)
60. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
62. Tenenbaum, H. R., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., & Zanger, V. V. (2004). Children's learning about water in a museum and in the classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 40-58. (Pubitemid 38461938)
63. Tesch, M., & Duit, R. (2004). Experimentieren im Physikunterricht- Ergebnisse einer Videostudie [Experimentation in physics: Results of a video-study]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 51-69.
64. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
65. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169.
66. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Conceptual change in learning genetics: An ontological perspective. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22, 185-202.
67. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16-26.
68. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055. (Pubitemid 128457529)
69. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future directions. InW. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou,&M.Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 3-13). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.
70. Whelan, R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1-12.
71. Winberg, T. M., & Berg, A. R. (2007). Students' cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108-1133. (Pubitemid 47573897)